In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

鵻 93 鵼 Chapter 5 鵻 The Rabbinic Hermeneutic: Midrash in the Biblical Commentaries 鵼 A barbanel stresses, in statements of exegetical purpose scattered throughout his biblical commentaries, his fundamental preoccupation with explication of Scripture’s contextual meaning—peshuខ to shel miqra’.1 Yet, like many of his predecessors, he combines in his biblical exegesis a quest for contextual sense with other levels of interpretation, midrash included. Like nearly all such writers, Abarbanel nowhere systematically defines his terms of reference, peshaខ t and derash (nor, despite a considerable investment of time and energy, have modern scholars reached anything close to a consensus regarding such definitions).2 One might, then, in seeking to understand the place of the rabbinic hermeneutic in Abarbanel’s biblical commentaries, rest content to uncover the distinction between peshaខ t and derash as he understood it and leave things at that. To unfold reasons why Abarbanel found various midrashim wanting as renderings of Scripture’s peshaខ t, however, is to tell only a small part of the story. Overlooked in this telling would be the motivations, concerns, and objectives that characteristically governed Abarbanel’s intricate interaction with diverse sorts of midrash, patterns in his handling of such dicta, any sense of the place of midrash in his larger exegetical agenda, and the larger historical and cultural contexts in which Abarbanel’s stance towards midrash must be set. As has already been seen, for instance, Abarbanel’s aim of producing theologically probing exegesis did not arise in a vacuum. A general dissatisfaction with philologically and grammatically centered biblical interpretation prevailed in the Spain (if not necessarily the Portugal) of his day. The rise of the Spanish sermon and kabbalistic biblical interpretation catered to Jews seeking more spiritually inspiring fare in readings of Holy Writ. When soundings below the surface of Abarbanel’s quest for peshaខ t are taken, they yield a variety of highly informative conclusions, of which the main ones might best be stated in advance. First, nearly all modern scholarly depictions of 94 鵼 Isaac Abarbanel’s Stance Toward Tradition his exegesis notwithstanding, Abarbanel defined himself first and foremost as a seeker of Scripture’s plain sense and lived up to his representations on this score. Second, ready acceptance of rabbinic views, methods, and motifs was not the rule in his biblical commentaries. Third, for Abarbanel the fact that midrashim were rarely an evocation of or spur to contextual understanding was not decisive in determining whether they should have a place in his commentaries. Fourth and finally, this latter truth is reflective of a conception of the biblical exegete’s mission according to which, in addition to operating with the method of peshaខ t, it was the exegete’s task to explore and expound many others from among Scripture’s “seventy faces.” As a dominant one, this last point deserves some elaboration at the outset. Abarbanel was both a biblical interpreter and a theologian; he channeled the lion’s share of his literary energy into biblical commentary but wrote extensive theological tracts as well.3 More to the point, however, theology was woven into Abarbanel’s exegesis and exegesis into his theology. Abarbanel’s biblical commentaries allow his reader to take a full measure of his religio-philosophic concern, while the characteristic interplay of exegesis and theology in his writings is most pronounced in his commentaries on the Torah. To understand the treatment of midrashim in Abarbanel’s biblical commentaries, then, it is critical to be alert both to his hermeneutic principles and techniques and to his general theological sensibilities and specific religious teachings. As has been seen, Abarbanel affirmed that his biblical commentary would have a dual focus: both explanation of the verses and investigation of the conceptual themes to which they pointed “to their very end with great thoroughness.” One aim of biblical exegesis, indeed its primary one, was explication of peshaខ t, but doing interpretive justice to Scripture also meant, to him, generating theologically probing and religiously edifying renderings of Holy Writ. On rare occasion Abarbanel found midrash helpful in uncovering Scripture’s contextual sense. It was, however, as part of his effort to realize additional interpretive aims that midrash came into its own in his biblical commentaries. Quest for Peshaខ t In expressing his paramount preoccupation with peshuខ to shel miqra’, Abarbanel often followed Rashi’s famous formulation, “I come only to present Scripture ’s peshaខ t and such aggadot as explain the biblical passages in a fitting manner .” Tellingly, however, the part of Rashi’s declaration...

Share